On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 08:54:52 +0100, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org
wrote:
I don't think Dave was thinking of anything more than two different
relations (partly) using the same ways. That would not warrant any
special kind of relation.
For situations in which you want relations contained
2009/2/9 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org:
Hi,
marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com wrote:
You need the route relation so you can represent easily both a local
and international route over the same ways, but it's no big deal if
you have to split the 420km international route into three sections.
Frederik Ramm schrieb:
I don't think Dave was thinking of anything more than two different
relations (partly) using the same ways. That would not warrant any
special kind of relation.
For situations in which you want relations contained in relations - e.g.
in a situation where a
Hi,
Dave Stubbs wrote:
The main problem there is that you lose the super relation if it's
just made of sub relations.
You can use the relation/id/relations request to find out about the
relations containing another relation, so they are not lost...
It might be a problem for people parsing
On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 22:24:47 +, Dave Stubbs osm.l...@randomjunk.co.uk
wrote:
Umm.. yes. You've managed to get the complete wrong end of the stick :-)
I was saying that's what relations are there for.
You need the route relation so you can represent easily both a local
and international
Hi,
marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com wrote:
You need the route relation so you can represent easily both a local
and international route over the same ways, but it's no big deal if
you have to split the 420km international route into three sections.
Do you have a wiki-page that defines how
6 matches
Mail list logo
